"Recovery"

Drunken man rescued from
icy river after jumping in
to chase one-legged goose.

Some, including President Obama, say that if we are patient enough we will experience a “recovery.” I take this to mean we will overcome some obstacle and go back to the way it was previously. This idea of (economic) recovery is based upon the idea that history repeats itself and that many times in the past the economy has slumped but then inevitably turned around (recovered). But what if there is not going to be a recovery? What if our unemployment rate is going to stay where it is no matter what Obama tries to do about it? I think there are reasons to believe this may well be what is going to happen. What if Stephen Pizzo (see his “Slouching Towards Austerity,” in today’s Smirking Chimp) is right (I suspect he is) when he says “the West’s one-time Horn of Plenty is now running on empty.” That is with centuries of “progress” with almost no competition for natural resources and markets, the West has lived a life of great affluence. But now, with serious competition from countries like China and India, resources becoming more and more scarce, this favored status is disappearing, we are, as he says, “Slouching Towards Austerity.”

That this is most probably true can be seen in the fact that most Americans have slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) seen their life-styles diminish. Wages have not kept up with inflation, more people are living in poverty, unemployment is rampant, the nation is deeply in debt, and recovery does not seem to be happening. Saying recovery is on the way but it just takes time may be just plain incorrect. This means, among other things, that Barack Obama is unfortunate enough to be President at a time when history is not repeating itself, recovery is not going to happen as predicted, and Obama is helpless to do anything about it. Arguments about who is chiefly responsible and why Obama isn’t doing anything about it become, if not meaningless, at least irrelevant.

Still another dimension of this problem can be seen in an explanation put forward about unemployment. Someone suggested that the reason there are so many unemployed people is simply because all the “good” and “necessary” people have jobs, the implication being there is clearly a large surplus of (useless) unnecessary workers. When you realize the number of unemployed actually exceeds the 9.6% official rate by quite a bit, it is obvious this is a much greater problem than we are being led to believe. You might also consider that Wall Street, and thus businesses and corporations, are making record profits even with this high rate of unemployment. This situation cannot be rectified in the U.S. because of the irrational and unfathomable, even virtually pathological fear of “socialism.” This is not to say socialism would be an easy solution, socialist nations in the West are no better, and perhaps worse off, than we are. This is perhaps not only because they are socialistic, but also because they allowed excessive immigration (and, of course have also experienced the disappearing fruits of colonialism and exploitation). Even so, it does appear to me that nations with the best likelihood of survival are those with forms of Democratic Socialism, nations which provide a basic safety net for all while at the same time allowing some to become more wealthy than others.

It is quite possibly the case there is no viable solution to inevitable austerity available (at least at the moment). The rapid growth of technology has made it possible that not as many workers are necessary to keep a nation in food and other necessities. Thus there is an unprecedented surplus of labor. In a capitalistic economy, where labor is viewed simply as another commodity, this surplus can simply be ignored and left to sicken, go hungry, and die in the vast slums surrounding all of our great cities, conveniently denying the fact there are living human beings involved, not merely commodities. This seems to be the current Republican plan for the future, shared, alas, by some Democrats as well.

It is possible to argue, as many do, that the basic problem is overpopulation. Perhaps it is in certain places, but more importantly, it is a result of our profligate waste of the earth’s resources and our inability or unwillingness to share. Both overpopulation and sharing are factors that could be controlled if the human species wished to control them. But we have no history of doing this and there seems to be little possibility for change in this regard. Indeed, it appears that more hostility and competition will be a more likely scenario.

I think an expectation for recovery, as we have thought of it in the past, is unrealistic, given the current conditions of this tiny and abused planet (and the irrationality and greed of the humans that inhabit it). Certainly there is not going to be a “full recovery,” although things may improve somewhat temporarily (a bit more socialism would help). The glory years of “the American Century” are over. Make your peace with austerity, but let’s make it austerity for all, not excepting those hoarding badly needed resources.

LKBIQ:
When commercial capital occupies a position of unquestioned ascendancy, it everywhere constitutes a system of plunder.
Karl Marx

TILT:
Help is not on the way.